|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 10, 2020 22:57:55 GMT
Not good for Abellio, losing the 414 and C2. I do think the 414 will be withdrawn sooner because now it is just a planned cut but it really is a route that is completely duplicated but in the 414’s case the routes it follows are fine without it (6, 14). I would of thought they could of did something with the 6, 36 and 414 like rerouting the 6 via Harrow Road and Queen’s Park (36 routing) and have the 36 cut back to Paddington and have the 414 extended to Queen’s Park. Solves the 6 issues and could bring more links to Harrow Road to Piccadilly and Whitehall 414 runs alone without the 6 and more busier And the 36 can be shorterned and not an overbussed western section Abellio haven't lost the 414 though. I think they meant losing a significant part of the 414.
|
|
|
Post by ssmoquette on Oct 10, 2020 23:28:49 GMT
Right, let’s just say I’m very unhappy with this proposal...
I use the route regularly, not daily but usually a couple times a week. The main issue I have is that Edgware Road has very poor links to the west already, and Marble Arch is a horrible interchange. The stop where it starts, and where people would mostly change, is already extremely crowded during the peak.
I feel like a better solution would be to extend the 414 to Willesden, and withdraw the 6. The only unserved places would then be Piccadilly, Charing X and the Strand, with the 9 being a suitable replacement as (AFAIK) it’s not used much at the moment.
As this would make the route quite long, cutting the route to Fulham would be a good solution as Fulham Road is quite heavily trafficked. This would cut 15 or so minutes off. If cutting it further would be desirable, I’d cut it to Chelsea & Westminster Hosp. as this means that people from Edgware Road still have a link to it. (Side note: Yes, St Mary’s exists, but for some situations C&W might have better services)
Right, got that off my chest...
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 11, 2020 1:10:38 GMT
Right, let’s just say I’m very unhappy with this proposal... I use the route regularly, not daily but usually a couple times a week. The main issue I have is that Edgware Road has very poor links to the west already, and Marble Arch is a horrible interchange. The stop where it starts, and where people would mostly change, is already extremely crowded during the peak. I feel like a better solution would be to extend the 414 to Willesden, and withdraw the 6. The only unserved places would then be Piccadilly, Charing X and the Strand, with the 9 being a suitable replacement as (AFAIK) it’s not used much at the moment. As this would make the route quite long, cutting the route to Fulham would be a good solution as Fulham Road is quite heavily trafficked. This would cut 15 or so minutes off. If cutting it further would be desirable, I’d cut it to Chelsea & Westminster Hosp. as this means that people from Edgware Road still have a link to it. (Side note: Yes, St Mary’s exists, but for some situations C&W might have better services) Right, got that off my chest... Disagree about the 6, I believe it's more important to have the 6 running through Central London's congestion Zone. We've lost so many routes there, don't need to lose another one. I'd also rather the 6 restored via Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 11, 2020 7:44:14 GMT
Right, let’s just say I’m very unhappy with this proposal... I use the route regularly, not daily but usually a couple times a week. The main issue I have is that Edgware Road has very poor links to the west already, and Marble Arch is a horrible interchange. The stop where it starts, and where people would mostly change, is already extremely crowded during the peak. I feel like a better solution would be to extend the 414 to Willesden, and withdraw the 6. The only unserved places would then be Piccadilly, Charing X and the Strand, with the 9 being a suitable replacement as (AFAIK) it’s not used much at the moment. As this would make the route quite long, cutting the route to Fulham would be a good solution as Fulham Road is quite heavily trafficked. This would cut 15 or so minutes off. If cutting it further would be desirable, I’d cut it to Chelsea & Westminster Hosp. as this means that people from Edgware Road still have a link to it. (Side note: Yes, St Mary’s exists, but for some situations C&W might have better services) Right, got that off my chest... That would be another option, the 6 isn't very well used since it was rerouted and there is no likelihood of it being returned to Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 11, 2020 8:01:38 GMT
As tfl were mentioning the 6 in this consultation anyways I'm surprised they didn't throw in cutting to Trafalgar Square on the basis the 9 covers it from Hyde Park Corner.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 11, 2020 16:04:10 GMT
I wonder if over time a decision's made in the route getting withdrawn altogether by contract end, or perhaps renewed with a shorter running contract in order to review again in future.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 11, 2020 16:13:56 GMT
Or even extend the contract by a year like with the 9, 94, 139 to assess the shortened route or to look at other routes in the area (14, 74 and 430) in conjunction with the renewals of those routes in 2023.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 18:24:26 GMT
Route 414 will provide a handful of direct links not available on routes 14 or 74. I guess that having both routes 14 & 414 rather than just route 14 with a larger allocation can mean a bit more competition. An enhanced route 14 would be even harder for a rival operator to gain. The 414 serves no direct links not found on either the 14 or 74, really it’s only purpose is to shadow the 14 and slop up any additional passengers which it doesn’t really do because the 14 is very well run. Besides given how low passenger numbers have been in recent years, enough to drop 7 buses from the 14 without cutting the 414 I think withdrawing the 414 and adding 3 buses back to 14 to maintain it would be acceptable. The hopper fare can take care of anyone changing at Hyde Park Corner to want to go towards Marble Arch. Odd. They’ll happily withdraw a route like the 10, but keep a separate expensive contract for what is a shortened version of the 14 with a small deviation up to Marble Arch. Agree with others, increase the 14 if need be and withdraw the 414.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 11, 2020 18:46:02 GMT
The 10 arguably was withdrawn more in conjunction with the planned pedestrianisation of Oxford a street. It was inevitable that not every route would be diverted and some withdrawn. Due to the 30, 390 (and 73 between Oxo and Kings X) it was the Marble Arch to Kings X section of the 10 that was withdrawn. The rest of the 10 technically wasn't withdrawn but replaced by the 23.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2020 21:47:09 GMT
The 10 arguably was withdrawn more in conjunction with the planned pedestrianisation of Oxford a street. It was inevitable that not every route would be diverted and some withdrawn. Due to the 30, 390 (and 73 between Oxo and Kings X) it was the Marble Arch to Kings X section of the 10 that was withdrawn. The rest of the 10 technically wasn't withdrawn but replaced by the 23. Well what they did was cut direct links dating back decades.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 11, 2020 21:48:59 GMT
This looks a good idea - obviously TfL have access to the data unlike the folks commenting here - and if 8bph is only needed to match demand then a cutback seems logical. After all, the bus network has to be responsive to travel patterns - especially so in these difficult times. Cutting it back to Marble Arch generates savings of at least £1 million P.A and still provides appropriate capacity to Maida Hill on the 6s, plus there's the hopper fare as the longest truncated 414 trip would be less than an hour.
But I daren't say a wider review is underway of the Putney-Kensington/London corridor - some harmonisation of the routes along there wouldn't go amiss, especially with a restructured 414. As with many corridors in inner London.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 11, 2020 21:55:54 GMT
Right, let’s just say I’m very unhappy with this proposal... I use the route regularly, not daily but usually a couple times a week. The main issue I have is that Edgware Road has very poor links to the west already, and Marble Arch is a horrible interchange. The stop where it starts, and where people would mostly change, is already extremely crowded during the peak. I feel like a better solution would be to extend the 414 to Willesden, and withdraw the 6. The only unserved places would then be Piccadilly, Charing X and the Strand, with the 9 being a suitable replacement as (AFAIK) it’s not used much at the moment. As this would make the route quite long, cutting the route to Fulham would be a good solution as Fulham Road is quite heavily trafficked. This would cut 15 or so minutes off. If cutting it further would be desirable, I’d cut it to Chelsea & Westminster Hosp. as this means that people from Edgware Road still have a link to it. (Side note: Yes, St Mary’s exists, but for some situations C&W might have better services) Right, got that off my chest... Where are the available stands along Fulham Road? Better to get rid of the 414 and keep the 6.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 11, 2020 22:00:57 GMT
This looks a good idea - obviously TfL have access to the data unlike the folks commenting here - and if 8bph is only needed to match demand then a cutback seems logical. After all, the bus network has to be responsive to travel patterns - especially so in these difficult times. Cutting it back to Marble Arch generates savings of at least £1 million P.A and still provides appropriate capacity to Maida Hill on the 6s, plus there's the hopper fare as the longest truncated 414 trip would be less than an hour. But I daren't say a wider review is underway of the Putney-Kensington/London corridor - some harmonisation of the routes along there wouldn't go amiss, especially with a restructured 414. As with many corridors in inner London. However, and this is a general point rather than specifically on one route, we must be very careful in where these cuts have been place especially given many of the cuts have had no effect in stemming any patronage loss. Travel patterns do change but many of these inner London corridors were still very busy even before Covid and it must not be used as an excuse to simply cut something that the poor, young & elderly rely on to suit others.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 12, 2020 10:28:24 GMT
This looks a good idea - obviously TfL have access to the data unlike the folks commenting here - and if 8bph is only needed to match demand then a cutback seems logical. After all, the bus network has to be responsive to travel patterns - especially so in these difficult times. Cutting it back to Marble Arch generates savings of at least £1 million P.A and still provides appropriate capacity to Maida Hill on the 6s, plus there's the hopper fare as the longest truncated 414 trip would be less than an hour. But I daren't say a wider review is underway of the Putney-Kensington/London corridor - some harmonisation of the routes along there wouldn't go amiss, especially with a restructured 414. As with many corridors in inner London. See that's the thing, TfL normally say screw Joe & Jenny Public and actually state passenger volume figures in consultations. To my knowledge, this is the first time they've skipped pure data and simply said buses per hour, which can rounded up or down depending on the narrative they're trying to achieve. It's a smarter way to get less flack, don't say crucial stuff like how many journeys will be broken etc. and make the cut more rational by making it less relatable to passengers. The problem with the 414 is that it isn't as frequent as the routes it shadows, and doesn't receive appropriate patronage in central London due to the actual fleet itself. Northbound at Marble Arch, I've been witness to this as people let the bus go to wait for the 6, and likewise southbound around the South Kensington area waiting in lieu of the 14. A few years ago I was mentioning the same thing when other members noticed people were letting buses go to use the 253 down to Hackney in the Lower Clapton area; the reason for the sudden hysteria being an upgrade to LTs from VLWs. It sounds silly but who's going to board a bus that's 11 years old and offers no unique links instead of one that's 2-3 years old where it doesn't sound like it's going to break down at any time throughout its journey? There's way too many alternatives east of Fulham Broadway really to ever have to rely on this route, and no uproar will occur from the 414 being cut at Marble Arch from most stakeholder groups north of Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 12, 2020 12:11:01 GMT
They did use it with Chiswick high road (27) and the 88/C2 stating the required bph versus what they are currently providing.
|
|